V4: A new program like Orion is exciting, but it's ultimately just a cramped capsule that drops into the ocean on a parachute...[/quote]
JC:No final decision has been made as to the mode of landing. But regardless, there is nothing "just" about Orion. It will carry more passengers, in greater safey and higher reliability to more destinations than the Shuttle.
V4: Work on land landing has been dropped; although a land impact should be survivable it isn't being seriously considered. As to the internal volume, it is smaller than the Shuttle middeck; it could carry six for a short period but I suspect it will generally be limited to four, and there is virtually no capability for experimental payloads.
V4: , based on technology older than the Shuttle.
JC: Orion has newer avionics, more advanced materials, and uses a shuttle derived booster. The only thing "old" about Orion is the shape, but since it is a better shape for the missions it is designed to do, it's a rather silly argument.
V4: The shuttles, despite their age, have main wing spars of graphite-epoxy and wing ribs composed of boron composite trusses. The orbiters have been upgraded with glass cockpits and GPS navigation. Many parts of the thermal protection system have been updated, i.e. with FRSI, and thanks to ET improvements there has been very little tile damage post-Challenger; even a flexible carbon-carbon leading-edge material was developed at Ames, though there won't be time to actually use it. The Ares is mostly expendable but the only part derived from the Shuttle is the least cost-effective part, the SRB, which is reused even though it is not cost effective to do so. The SRB requires expensive and hazardous handling and assembly while fully fueled. The Ares requires maintaining the expensive infrastructure of the VAB, crawlers, and MLPs, and will not be significantly cheaper than the Shuttle for ISS access. It is indeed designed for and capable of human lunar flight, but whether it is capable of lunar flight at a sustainable cost remains to be seen. Apollo could also fly to the moon, but its cost was not sustainable. I could be proven wrong, but I've seen several programs stretched to oblivion by cost-cutting, and Constellation already seems to be under severe cost pressure. NASA is committed to Constellation for ISS access, but the lunar mission, for which it was designed, could easily slip. If the public really wants it, one would think they would be willing to pay a little more in taxes and raise the budget.
V4: Soon it will be gone, and we will not see its like again.
JC: We will see something much better instead.
V4: Hopefully we will. But it won't be soon, and it won't be Constellation.
I respect you views, Jon, and actually I hope you are right. But I have been around this program quite a while, and I am not hopeful.